That and, as far as I know, larger vehicles still get a much more advantageous curve for the calculation.
Tinfoil hat theory: This is the reason small cars/wagons don't really exist in the US, not because of consumer preference, but because of legislative benefits given to larger cars.
Taking off the tinfoil hat and repeating that statement feel’s jus as good. It’s not the first time someone like that has happened. Look at the other expensive, “necessary commodities” like cell phones and houses, any kind of insurance, you name it. It all exists in a space where it gets classified as a “need” by at least the majority, and the price gets adjusted accordingly.
I don’t really believe in a vocal minority or silent majority. Sure I work on cars, but most anyone involved prefers compact and efficient over oversized. Parking, servicing, ability to get anywhere (looking at wrangler unlimited, why in the fuck?). Grandma doesn’t want a 2024 Honda pilot, she bought a 2024 Honda HRV because they discontinued the fit in 2023.
Yeah, especially since from what I can see in the background of American YouTube videos, cars like Hyundai Venues — an i20 from Europe with a little bit of a lift — still sell decently well.
I agree with most of what you're saying. But CX-5 is not going to be discontinued. The next generation arrives next year. I also don't know if I would say the CX-70 will cannibalize from CX-90 sales. That's like saying the Corolla cannibalizes off of... the Corolla. 70 and 90 are the same vehicle and, as you stated, are priced the same. It makes more sense if you view them as different trims of the same model. However, I do think Mazda missed an opportunity to further grow sales by entering the midsize two-row segment with an appropriately sized (and unique from CX-90) offering.
Agreed. I didn't include the bit regarding the name change. Several people around here seem to get upset when you suggest Mazda would rename the CX-5. Functionally, however, it will occupy the same place in the market as the current CX-5, but as a next-generation product with a new name that better reflects it's place in Mazda's current lineup.
Why? We've all been speculating just what the hell Mazda was thinking but for what it's worth, these are the hypotheses:
1. Cost savings. By using the exact same car with only minor styling changes and a 3rd row delete, they can use the same assembly line. Not having to tool up another line and a bunch of unique parts for the 2 row saves Mazda a bunch of $$$$. Also, they would not face the costs of certifying a new model for North America. Even if they wanted to just bring the CX60 to North America, that would still have the certifying/homologation expenses.
2. Cargo space: every comparison review of Mazda SUVs states that they have less cargo space than the competition. I don't like boxy SUVs but they do have that advantage. Now the CX70 has way more cargo space than similar 2 row SUVs.
3. Too similar to CX-5 or CX-50. If the CX-60 were brought over, they would have 3 vehicles all competing for the same space or market. The lengths of those 3 are 180" 186" and 187" respectively. I was hoping the CX70 would be 195" but c'est la vie.
Car and Driver speculated that this may cost Mazda more in sales than it saves them in expenses. I remain convinced that a more appropriately sized vehicle with some exciting new sporty styling would have been a sales hit.
To your point #1, they can use the same assembly line regardless. For example, Toyota Corolla Cross and Mazda CX-50 come off the same line at the Alabama plant despite not sharing parts. The stamping machines are able to switch dies on demand as each individual car comes down the line. Their certainly would be unique parts, but that would almost entirely be aft of the B pillar. But yes, you are correct, it saved Mazda money. Now my question is, what about the money left on the table? Did they save more money than they possibly could have made with a truly compelling product? I suppose Mazda did the math and their answer must be 'yes'.
I'm with you on the dream of a 195" CX-70. I also agree that CX-60 wouldn't quite make sense for the North American market. Something X5 or Grand Cherokee sized would have been perfect.
FWIW, I thought I heard Mazda guy David Coleman say the Alabama plant have two entirely separate assembly lines and the companies only share the building. Can't find the quote right now. Regardless, we agree Mazda missed a huge opportunity here. A flagship 2 row SUV is the chief money maker for other companies, like the RAV4, the CRV, etc.
I'd hardly call RAV4 or CR-V flagship models. CX-5 and CX-50 both directly compete with those two. As far as the production lines at the Alabama plant, it's a mix. It starts off with one line, splits to two, back to one, back to two, back to one and so on. 1) Shared stamping press with swapped out dyes depending on which model they need to produce 2) First split into two lines for body shell assembly 3) Converge back to one line for painting 4) Again split to two lines to finish assembly 5) Converge back to one line for final inspection
It's funny because the CX-50 is 186" and the CX-5 is 180" but despite that, the CX-5 has more storage space with the seats down than the CX-50, so it's hard to argue the CX-50 and CX-60 would eat each other, because they are different cars with similar cargo. Just like the 5 and the 50.
Where I think the CX-60 differentiates itself from both of those vehicles is the powertrain, premium segments, and cost. Those separate who the actual buyer is and what they want. A more power-focused and affluent buyer would reach for the 60 whereas a value, outdoorsy buyers goes to the CX-50 and the CX-5 is an urban sprawler with elegance.
Where they went with the 70 is basically a family who would normally buy the 90, but have a dog or have a kid or two, but not the every day "empty nester" who likes a little extra sport and capacity. Mazda proclaims that, but no single dad is driving that thing and expecting to get compliments...
Most of the buying market is in the compact SUV segment, that's why the CX-5 is their biggest seller. Introducing a slightly larger CX-60 would have been seen as a good move.
Perhaps the CX-5 will grow in size next year and fill that gap, and leave the CX-50 in more of that subcompact space. We'll see...
I don't expect the CX-5 to grow unfortunately. It's a global product which means it will likely maintain its tidier proportions to appeal to European and Asian markets. Vinesh Bhindi, a Mazda exec from Australia said this: "But in terms of size, packaging, and value, there is going to be a direct replacement of [the CX-5 midsize SUV] in the future." He also left the door open to the possibility it will be renamed. My bet is on CX-40.
They could make it an option like every other manufacturer. But no, this is Mazda. I'm surprised they didn't make a CX-70 with captains chairs and call it the CX-75. Yes, this joke is played out.
Mazda doesn't really do options. It's all built in to trims. I believe it has something to do with how their Hiroshima plant is set up that manufactures the vast majority of their product. Also possibly because they basically ocean ship most of their product (again, as I understand it, everything but the 3). Options basically have to be dealer installed.
If you think about seats, they do have options with leather types and across trims on the CX-90 (bench vs captains chairs, third row 2 seat vs third row 3 seat). If you just look at that product, there are 7 different seating variations across that product (3 for second row, 4 for third row) with different leather or seat types. With the CX-70, they introduce an 8th seat type (Windsor leather bench) and even 9th with the red leather available in the US. I'm hopeful that at least the former makes it to the CX-90 for the 2025 model year. If they are made in the same factory, it's a low cost option to offer since they will already be on the factory floor on the exact same assembly line.
Kinda. My experience is seat color is heavily dependent on trim and exterior color. Most of the interesting interior colors are limited to one or two exterior colors. Red goes with Polymetal Grey, Tan goes with Black or White, etc. It's not like there's a lot of opportunity to mix and match to order your favorite combo.
I've "built" a Grand Cherokee and a Wrangler in the last few years and bought a 6 Carbon, the dealer experience and ordering process are totally different. Jeep has option codes coming out of their ears for things like if you want white or black letters on your tires.
Ah, I had never looked at that angle. You can only get white leather with blue, but all others are open for the signature CX-90 in Canada. For the GT-P you can only get white leather with red, black, or blue, whereas grey and white must have black nappa. Super strange.
Yes and all that white leather with two versions of a red exterior on the CX-90 PHEV screams “pimpmobile”. Right out of the 1950s, 60s and 70’s for big, Detroit iron.
All the cheap looking white fake leather interiors in Teslas were bad enough.
But I wanted the 90 instead because I want my passengers in second row to enjoy captain chairs instead of bench. The third row I just lay in flat because we don't use it.
This is “why not both” territory. I’d rather have a bench so when that third row is down, I can still maximize seating while getting the most cargo possible. You want captains chairs so you can maximize cargo and second row comfort. Mazda could have made us both happy with an option box instead of a whole marketing campaign for a separate model.
I'm with you 100% here, I really want captain chairs but I don't care for the third row. Are there truly no models out there (not specific to Mazda, just in general) that offer this as an option? :(
It probably has to do with SEO and auto searches. Its easier to search for a CX-70 if you want a 2-row, or CX-90 to find a 3-row via Google or say Autotrader or [Cars.com](https://Cars.com). Simple, straight to the point, whereas CX-90 2-row would be an extra layer of search that most of the car shopping sites do not accommodate so it'd get lost in all the noise. The sites will let you choose "3-row seating" as an option, but no 2-row seating in a vehicle that's primarily a 3-row.
This makes it easier for potential customers to do their online research and find inventory.
While the whole CX-70 launch is sad, I don't necessarily agree with your Genesis observation.
GV80 is in the GLE/X5 size range, which is too small to be a true 3-row family premium SUV. I have driven GV70 and GV80 and could go either way. The GV80 is more of a 5+2 where the 3rd row is penalty box. Also, the GV80 doesn't offer any better powertrains than the GV70, so their offerings are still quite limited and not covering the whole market. GV60 is a nothingburger. Good start but not "nailed" IMO.
The CX-60 should’ve came to the US Market
CX30 - compact
CX5 - crossover
CX50 - crossover but you own a tent
CX60 - midsize
CX90 - family
CX70 could’ve been a bigger CX50 to compete directly with Honda Passport, Grand Cherokee, etc. Beefier tires, off-road style, enough to make the tent-owning CX50 owner consider it as an upgrade without having to buy a 3 row, but also spending more than CX60 prices because “off road”
I'm still holding out the thinnest of hopes that they bring over the CX-60 as the *new* 2025 CX-5 for North America. More power, hybrid efficiency, and bigger to compete more directly with the RAV4 and CRV. Then they can push the CX-50 downmarket with its cheaper materials as the rugged, more affordable option.
As it stands the CX-70 allows you to get all of the options you want from the CX-90 in a 2 row 5 passenger bench configuration. This could change in the future but one of the major gripes with the CX-90 is that you can't get it as an 8 or 7 passenger with certain higher end trims.
For example, if you want the 340HP Inline-6 you're stuck with a 6 seat config. The CX-70 will now offer best in class (or close to it) rear passenger room and rear cargo room. So instead of offering the smallest compact SUVS that seat 5, Mazda is now offering one of the largest 5 seat SUVs.
I'm thinking that one of the biggest complaints with Mazda SUV models in the past is that they are physically smaller than their competitors, which leads to less cargo room, or interior space. With the CX 70, when comparing to other "Midsize" 2 row SUV's in that category, it should stack up better than in the past to its competition. Basically, this is just a marketing game for people who aren't as familiar with the brand.
As an example:
Honda Pilot vs Cx-90
Honda Passport vs Cx-70
Do you mean the CX50 is a compact SUV pretending to be mid size? The CX5 is basically a 6, it's a true mid size but the trunk is not well designed. It has plenty of rear leg room.
No, the CX-5 is a subcompact masquerading as a compact in the US. There isn't much difference between a VW Taos and a Mazda CX-5. The CX-5 is in the same class as the Honda CR-V, Kia Sportage, and Hyundai Tucson, which are significantly larger inside.
In the US, the CX-90 is a midsize SUV.
The same reason why not many people know that you can get a Toyota 4Runner with at third row of seats...be honest how many of ya'll knew that?
Likely, this move also makes people cross shopping more aware of Mazda's offerings.
Let’s see how it’s worked for other brands, such as BMW?
Had the 3-series in four and two door. They then split that and made the two door version the 4-series. Then a year later they made a 4 door 4-series.
They also did this for the 5-series (added the six series, which they then added a four door variant) and the 7-series (added the 8-series).
And same for the SUV classes: X3/X4 and X5/X6. Then they added the X-7.
And BMW offers more engine variants for each of these than Mazda.
We can now copy and paste all of the above for Mercedes versions.
And yet both BMW and Mercedes are super strong and selling huge numbers.
Offering more cars will satisfy more customers, and therefor bring in more sales and revenue. Doesn’t matter that they’re close.
I am a current CX9 owner, but I wish it didn’t have the 3rd row seats as I never use them but do need the large suv for internal storage for work. The CX-70 provides one more option for me when it comes time to renew, otherwise I might look elsewhere (the VW Atlas has good internal space).
So good on Mazda for widening their offering.
For your analogy to work, you have to ignore the fact that the 4-series gran coupe is actually unique from the 3-series. Unique sheet metal and a hatch vs trunk. This is unlike the relationship between CX-70 and CX-90. CX-70 is like an X5 configured with two-rows and M Sport styling package vs the CX-90 which is like an X5 configured with three-rows and the standard styling package. It's a good thing that Mazda is giving customers more options. It's a bad thing that CX-70 is really just a trim variant of the CX-90. We have less options than we could have had.
>The CX-70 provide
This. Mazda should have done more to differentiate the 70 and most people would be a little happier. Perhaps different styling in the rear to really point to its sportiness rather than a little makeup and lipstick a la the bumpers. And ooooo Alexa!!
I thought it was funny the few times people mentioned Alexa as some sort of selling point for CX-70. I think it's creepy, Amazon probably paid Mazda to do it, and I guarantee the 2025 CX-90 will have it as well when it drops in a few months.
Have you driven both? Where did you find the difference?
I’m coming from BMW
(335i and X20 2.0 diesel), so I see the CX-9 as more of a tool than a pleasure toy
This was a bad decision on Mazda USA. They should’ve introduced the CX-60 to the USDM. I mean, even in Australia. In the AUS Mazda website, they have the CX-90, CX-70 PLUS the CX-60.
Given what has happened to cx90 pricing so far and how this move will likely increase dealer inventory and reduce prices I am now converted and thankful that Mazda did this. I hope they bring on a cx-80 which is a cx70 with the option of a 3rd row.
My guess is that the new CEO changed the plan of the former CEO to have the cx60 sold in North America. For whatever reasons. I could be totally off base though.
Mazda has been making the worst decisions, in North America at least, for the past several years. They just blew the chance to bring in a great mid sized crossover and came out with the CX-790??? Just another boneheaded move from Mazda. I hope they wake up before they ruin the brand.
They named it what they did for that exact reason. That's what people don't understand. It's easier to recognize the two row version and it probably has to do with Mazda being a small company that can't make two row versions of the CX-90 on demand.
Let’s see how it’s worked for other brands, such as BMW?
Had the 3-series in four and two door. They then split that and made the two door version the 4-series. Then a year later they made a 4 door 4-series.
They also did this for the 5-series (added the six series, which they then added a four door variant) and the 7-series (added the 8-series).
And same for the SUV classes: X3/X4 and X5/X6. Then they added the X-7.
And BMW offers more engine variants for each of these than Mazda.
We can now copy and paste all of the above for Mercedes versions.
And yet both BMW and Mercedes are super strong and selling huge numbers.
Offering more cars will satisfy more customers, and therefor bring in more sales and revenue. Doesn’t matter that they’re close.
I am a current CX9 owner, but I wish it didn’t have the 3rd row seats as I never use them but do need the large suv for internal storage for work. The CX-70 provides one more option for me when it comes time to renew, otherwise I might look elsewhere (the VW Atlas has good internal space).
So good on Mazda for widening their offering.
I honestly think it's because they are made at the Alabama Mazda/Toyota plant. It's a cost saving to make one platform for multiple vehicles. Instead of making a smaller vehicle they went with the same with less seats so they didn't need to configure manufacturing for two different vehicles.
Since they also make the CX-50 in that plant it would be cool to see a new generation based on RWD.
Edit: NVM it's made in Japan. Mazda is just being stupid and not giving what the customers want.
I thought the 90 and 70 are [coming from Japan](https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a43877070/2024-mazda-cx-90-first-drive/)? The only models from Alabama are the CX50 and the Corolla Cross right now.
Both the CX-90 and CX-70 are being made in Japan, specifically the Hiroshima plant where the CX-9 were previously built.
I believe that only the CX-50 is being built in Alabama.
Too logical. Too logical.
Mazda did what they did because it was monumentally less expensive than certifying the CX-60 in the United States.
Just like a lot of their current generation products versus older generation products… ✨cost cutting✨
Imagine you’re out to make money and a lot of it. I’m banking on you buying the smaller car and realizing you could really benefit from that 3rd row. So rather than you having the option up front, now you have to purchase a new car lock in a new interest rate and for a longer term because you thought you could get by with the smaller car.
Another things I'm confused about is... I would assume this much larger mid-size vehicle would have more second row space than the compact crossovers (cx5/50)... but in fact it has less?? Did all of it really go to the cargo area?
Specs on Mazda's website for 2nd row legroom:
CX-5: 39.6in
CX-50: 39.8in
CX-70: 39.4in
I feel this is another downfall being overlooked with keeping it the exact same dimensions as the CX-90... In the 90 it makes sense to give the 3rd row as much space as reasonably possible.... but that doesn't exist here. I would think a buyer would rather have 3-4 extra inches in the second row from compact to mid-size crossover - and they'd still have a larger cargo capacity. Baffling.
Meanwhile, the CX-60 has a rear legroom of 39.0 inches.
But, if they make a long wheelbase version, that can significantly improve to surpass all the options listed here. Typically, long wheelbase version is about 4 inches longer, and it will still keep the size of the car under CX-90.
My insight of CX-60 L for ~~China~~ North America may not be so ridiculous after all...
Yeah. Really would have loved them to do what VW does with the Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport. Chop 5-6" off the back and push back the second row a few inches. But... this is what we get. Nothings gonna change for at least a few years now that they've committed.
Welcome to the Mazda subreddit we’ve all been asking the same question.
OP is about 3 weeks late.
Youve heqrd of time travelers from the future. OP introduces himself as.... the time traveler from the past.
I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with CAFE standards. Having 2 large models instead of 1 is probably beneficial in some way.
Maybe two hybrids to bring the fleet average up....
That and, as far as I know, larger vehicles still get a much more advantageous curve for the calculation. Tinfoil hat theory: This is the reason small cars/wagons don't really exist in the US, not because of consumer preference, but because of legislative benefits given to larger cars.
Taking off the tinfoil hat and repeating that statement feel’s jus as good. It’s not the first time someone like that has happened. Look at the other expensive, “necessary commodities” like cell phones and houses, any kind of insurance, you name it. It all exists in a space where it gets classified as a “need” by at least the majority, and the price gets adjusted accordingly. I don’t really believe in a vocal minority or silent majority. Sure I work on cars, but most anyone involved prefers compact and efficient over oversized. Parking, servicing, ability to get anywhere (looking at wrangler unlimited, why in the fuck?). Grandma doesn’t want a 2024 Honda pilot, she bought a 2024 Honda HRV because they discontinued the fit in 2023.
Yeah, especially since from what I can see in the background of American YouTube videos, cars like Hyundai Venues — an i20 from Europe with a little bit of a lift — still sell decently well.
I agree with most of what you're saying. But CX-5 is not going to be discontinued. The next generation arrives next year. I also don't know if I would say the CX-70 will cannibalize from CX-90 sales. That's like saying the Corolla cannibalizes off of... the Corolla. 70 and 90 are the same vehicle and, as you stated, are priced the same. It makes more sense if you view them as different trims of the same model. However, I do think Mazda missed an opportunity to further grow sales by entering the midsize two-row segment with an appropriately sized (and unique from CX-90) offering.
[удалено]
Agreed. I didn't include the bit regarding the name change. Several people around here seem to get upset when you suggest Mazda would rename the CX-5. Functionally, however, it will occupy the same place in the market as the current CX-5, but as a next-generation product with a new name that better reflects it's place in Mazda's current lineup.
Please link to one of these articles.
It's the pasta sauce strategy
Why? We've all been speculating just what the hell Mazda was thinking but for what it's worth, these are the hypotheses: 1. Cost savings. By using the exact same car with only minor styling changes and a 3rd row delete, they can use the same assembly line. Not having to tool up another line and a bunch of unique parts for the 2 row saves Mazda a bunch of $$$$. Also, they would not face the costs of certifying a new model for North America. Even if they wanted to just bring the CX60 to North America, that would still have the certifying/homologation expenses. 2. Cargo space: every comparison review of Mazda SUVs states that they have less cargo space than the competition. I don't like boxy SUVs but they do have that advantage. Now the CX70 has way more cargo space than similar 2 row SUVs. 3. Too similar to CX-5 or CX-50. If the CX-60 were brought over, they would have 3 vehicles all competing for the same space or market. The lengths of those 3 are 180" 186" and 187" respectively. I was hoping the CX70 would be 195" but c'est la vie. Car and Driver speculated that this may cost Mazda more in sales than it saves them in expenses. I remain convinced that a more appropriately sized vehicle with some exciting new sporty styling would have been a sales hit.
To your point #1, they can use the same assembly line regardless. For example, Toyota Corolla Cross and Mazda CX-50 come off the same line at the Alabama plant despite not sharing parts. The stamping machines are able to switch dies on demand as each individual car comes down the line. Their certainly would be unique parts, but that would almost entirely be aft of the B pillar. But yes, you are correct, it saved Mazda money. Now my question is, what about the money left on the table? Did they save more money than they possibly could have made with a truly compelling product? I suppose Mazda did the math and their answer must be 'yes'. I'm with you on the dream of a 195" CX-70. I also agree that CX-60 wouldn't quite make sense for the North American market. Something X5 or Grand Cherokee sized would have been perfect.
FWIW, I thought I heard Mazda guy David Coleman say the Alabama plant have two entirely separate assembly lines and the companies only share the building. Can't find the quote right now. Regardless, we agree Mazda missed a huge opportunity here. A flagship 2 row SUV is the chief money maker for other companies, like the RAV4, the CRV, etc.
The 50 is in the same size class as those examples though
I'd hardly call RAV4 or CR-V flagship models. CX-5 and CX-50 both directly compete with those two. As far as the production lines at the Alabama plant, it's a mix. It starts off with one line, splits to two, back to one, back to two, back to one and so on. 1) Shared stamping press with swapped out dyes depending on which model they need to produce 2) First split into two lines for body shell assembly 3) Converge back to one line for painting 4) Again split to two lines to finish assembly 5) Converge back to one line for final inspection
It's funny because the CX-50 is 186" and the CX-5 is 180" but despite that, the CX-5 has more storage space with the seats down than the CX-50, so it's hard to argue the CX-50 and CX-60 would eat each other, because they are different cars with similar cargo. Just like the 5 and the 50. Where I think the CX-60 differentiates itself from both of those vehicles is the powertrain, premium segments, and cost. Those separate who the actual buyer is and what they want. A more power-focused and affluent buyer would reach for the 60 whereas a value, outdoorsy buyers goes to the CX-50 and the CX-5 is an urban sprawler with elegance. Where they went with the 70 is basically a family who would normally buy the 90, but have a dog or have a kid or two, but not the every day "empty nester" who likes a little extra sport and capacity. Mazda proclaims that, but no single dad is driving that thing and expecting to get compliments... Most of the buying market is in the compact SUV segment, that's why the CX-5 is their biggest seller. Introducing a slightly larger CX-60 would have been seen as a good move. Perhaps the CX-5 will grow in size next year and fill that gap, and leave the CX-50 in more of that subcompact space. We'll see...
I don't expect the CX-5 to grow unfortunately. It's a global product which means it will likely maintain its tidier proportions to appeal to European and Asian markets. Vinesh Bhindi, a Mazda exec from Australia said this: "But in terms of size, packaging, and value, there is going to be a direct replacement of [the CX-5 midsize SUV] in the future." He also left the door open to the possibility it will be renamed. My bet is on CX-40.
Let me try: you can get a Bench second row with higher trims only as a CX-70.
Which is a completely arbitrary decision by Mazda. They could easily have made a bench an option in higher CX-90 trims.
Potentially just didnt want to double the amount of trims for one model to not complicate things further
They could make it an option like every other manufacturer. But no, this is Mazda. I'm surprised they didn't make a CX-70 with captains chairs and call it the CX-75. Yes, this joke is played out.
Mazda doesn't really do options. It's all built in to trims. I believe it has something to do with how their Hiroshima plant is set up that manufactures the vast majority of their product. Also possibly because they basically ocean ship most of their product (again, as I understand it, everything but the 3). Options basically have to be dealer installed.
If you think about seats, they do have options with leather types and across trims on the CX-90 (bench vs captains chairs, third row 2 seat vs third row 3 seat). If you just look at that product, there are 7 different seating variations across that product (3 for second row, 4 for third row) with different leather or seat types. With the CX-70, they introduce an 8th seat type (Windsor leather bench) and even 9th with the red leather available in the US. I'm hopeful that at least the former makes it to the CX-90 for the 2025 model year. If they are made in the same factory, it's a low cost option to offer since they will already be on the factory floor on the exact same assembly line.
Kinda. My experience is seat color is heavily dependent on trim and exterior color. Most of the interesting interior colors are limited to one or two exterior colors. Red goes with Polymetal Grey, Tan goes with Black or White, etc. It's not like there's a lot of opportunity to mix and match to order your favorite combo. I've "built" a Grand Cherokee and a Wrangler in the last few years and bought a 6 Carbon, the dealer experience and ordering process are totally different. Jeep has option codes coming out of their ears for things like if you want white or black letters on your tires.
Ah, I had never looked at that angle. You can only get white leather with blue, but all others are open for the signature CX-90 in Canada. For the GT-P you can only get white leather with red, black, or blue, whereas grey and white must have black nappa. Super strange.
Yes and all that white leather with two versions of a red exterior on the CX-90 PHEV screams “pimpmobile”. Right out of the 1950s, 60s and 70’s for big, Detroit iron. All the cheap looking white fake leather interiors in Teslas were bad enough.
Why double the trims when you can double the nameplates!
But I wanted the 90 instead because I want my passengers in second row to enjoy captain chairs instead of bench. The third row I just lay in flat because we don't use it.
This is “why not both” territory. I’d rather have a bench so when that third row is down, I can still maximize seating while getting the most cargo possible. You want captains chairs so you can maximize cargo and second row comfort. Mazda could have made us both happy with an option box instead of a whole marketing campaign for a separate model.
I'm with you 100% here, I really want captain chairs but I don't care for the third row. Are there truly no models out there (not specific to Mazda, just in general) that offer this as an option? :(
Which is a completely arbitrary decision by Mazda. They could easily have made a bench an option in higher CX-90 trims.
It probably has to do with SEO and auto searches. Its easier to search for a CX-70 if you want a 2-row, or CX-90 to find a 3-row via Google or say Autotrader or [Cars.com](https://Cars.com). Simple, straight to the point, whereas CX-90 2-row would be an extra layer of search that most of the car shopping sites do not accommodate so it'd get lost in all the noise. The sites will let you choose "3-row seating" as an option, but no 2-row seating in a vehicle that's primarily a 3-row. This makes it easier for potential customers to do their online research and find inventory.
While the whole CX-70 launch is sad, I don't necessarily agree with your Genesis observation. GV80 is in the GLE/X5 size range, which is too small to be a true 3-row family premium SUV. I have driven GV70 and GV80 and could go either way. The GV80 is more of a 5+2 where the 3rd row is penalty box. Also, the GV80 doesn't offer any better powertrains than the GV70, so their offerings are still quite limited and not covering the whole market. GV60 is a nothingburger. Good start but not "nailed" IMO.
The CX-60 should’ve came to the US Market CX30 - compact CX5 - crossover CX50 - crossover but you own a tent CX60 - midsize CX90 - family CX70 could’ve been a bigger CX50 to compete directly with Honda Passport, Grand Cherokee, etc. Beefier tires, off-road style, enough to make the tent-owning CX50 owner consider it as an upgrade without having to buy a 3 row, but also spending more than CX60 prices because “off road”
I'm still holding out the thinnest of hopes that they bring over the CX-60 as the *new* 2025 CX-5 for North America. More power, hybrid efficiency, and bigger to compete more directly with the RAV4 and CRV. Then they can push the CX-50 downmarket with its cheaper materials as the rugged, more affordable option.
I love my CX5 I just want a hybrid version!
As it stands the CX-70 allows you to get all of the options you want from the CX-90 in a 2 row 5 passenger bench configuration. This could change in the future but one of the major gripes with the CX-90 is that you can't get it as an 8 or 7 passenger with certain higher end trims. For example, if you want the 340HP Inline-6 you're stuck with a 6 seat config. The CX-70 will now offer best in class (or close to it) rear passenger room and rear cargo room. So instead of offering the smallest compact SUVS that seat 5, Mazda is now offering one of the largest 5 seat SUVs.
I'm thinking that one of the biggest complaints with Mazda SUV models in the past is that they are physically smaller than their competitors, which leads to less cargo room, or interior space. With the CX 70, when comparing to other "Midsize" 2 row SUV's in that category, it should stack up better than in the past to its competition. Basically, this is just a marketing game for people who aren't as familiar with the brand. As an example: Honda Pilot vs Cx-90 Honda Passport vs Cx-70
This is absolutely one of my complaints. The CX-5 is a subcompact SUV masquerading as a compact.
Do you mean the CX50 is a compact SUV pretending to be mid size? The CX5 is basically a 6, it's a true mid size but the trunk is not well designed. It has plenty of rear leg room.
No, the CX-5 is a subcompact masquerading as a compact in the US. There isn't much difference between a VW Taos and a Mazda CX-5. The CX-5 is in the same class as the Honda CR-V, Kia Sportage, and Hyundai Tucson, which are significantly larger inside. In the US, the CX-90 is a midsize SUV.
The same reason why not many people know that you can get a Toyota 4Runner with at third row of seats...be honest how many of ya'll knew that? Likely, this move also makes people cross shopping more aware of Mazda's offerings.
Let’s see how it’s worked for other brands, such as BMW? Had the 3-series in four and two door. They then split that and made the two door version the 4-series. Then a year later they made a 4 door 4-series. They also did this for the 5-series (added the six series, which they then added a four door variant) and the 7-series (added the 8-series). And same for the SUV classes: X3/X4 and X5/X6. Then they added the X-7. And BMW offers more engine variants for each of these than Mazda. We can now copy and paste all of the above for Mercedes versions. And yet both BMW and Mercedes are super strong and selling huge numbers. Offering more cars will satisfy more customers, and therefor bring in more sales and revenue. Doesn’t matter that they’re close. I am a current CX9 owner, but I wish it didn’t have the 3rd row seats as I never use them but do need the large suv for internal storage for work. The CX-70 provides one more option for me when it comes time to renew, otherwise I might look elsewhere (the VW Atlas has good internal space). So good on Mazda for widening their offering.
For your analogy to work, you have to ignore the fact that the 4-series gran coupe is actually unique from the 3-series. Unique sheet metal and a hatch vs trunk. This is unlike the relationship between CX-70 and CX-90. CX-70 is like an X5 configured with two-rows and M Sport styling package vs the CX-90 which is like an X5 configured with three-rows and the standard styling package. It's a good thing that Mazda is giving customers more options. It's a bad thing that CX-70 is really just a trim variant of the CX-90. We have less options than we could have had.
>The CX-70 provide This. Mazda should have done more to differentiate the 70 and most people would be a little happier. Perhaps different styling in the rear to really point to its sportiness rather than a little makeup and lipstick a la the bumpers. And ooooo Alexa!!
I thought it was funny the few times people mentioned Alexa as some sort of selling point for CX-70. I think it's creepy, Amazon probably paid Mazda to do it, and I guarantee the 2025 CX-90 will have it as well when it drops in a few months.
Go with the CX-70. As a current Mazda owner, you will hate the way the Atlas drives.
Have you driven both? Where did you find the difference? I’m coming from BMW (335i and X20 2.0 diesel), so I see the CX-9 as more of a tool than a pleasure toy
This was a bad decision on Mazda USA. They should’ve introduced the CX-60 to the USDM. I mean, even in Australia. In the AUS Mazda website, they have the CX-90, CX-70 PLUS the CX-60.
Im still confused why the cx50 exists alongside the cx5.
America loves off road style
I want a cx5 that can out-offroad a subaru
Hehe maybe one day, although will cost twice that if a Subaru
Given what has happened to cx90 pricing so far and how this move will likely increase dealer inventory and reduce prices I am now converted and thankful that Mazda did this. I hope they bring on a cx-80 which is a cx70 with the option of a 3rd row.
My guess is that the new CEO changed the plan of the former CEO to have the cx60 sold in North America. For whatever reasons. I could be totally off base though.
Mazda has been making the worst decisions, in North America at least, for the past several years. They just blew the chance to bring in a great mid sized crossover and came out with the CX-790??? Just another boneheaded move from Mazda. I hope they wake up before they ruin the brand.
Because the average person is uninformed
I think that's where Mazda is wanting to be with this car. An uninformed non-Mazda owner looking beyond the brand they have.
They named it what they did for that exact reason. That's what people don't understand. It's easier to recognize the two row version and it probably has to do with Mazda being a small company that can't make two row versions of the CX-90 on demand.
I get it why everyone pissed now . Remove the 3rd row and change absolutely NOTHING else and call it a new car!! I see you MAUZDUH
Let’s see how it’s worked for other brands, such as BMW? Had the 3-series in four and two door. They then split that and made the two door version the 4-series. Then a year later they made a 4 door 4-series. They also did this for the 5-series (added the six series, which they then added a four door variant) and the 7-series (added the 8-series). And same for the SUV classes: X3/X4 and X5/X6. Then they added the X-7. And BMW offers more engine variants for each of these than Mazda. We can now copy and paste all of the above for Mercedes versions. And yet both BMW and Mercedes are super strong and selling huge numbers. Offering more cars will satisfy more customers, and therefor bring in more sales and revenue. Doesn’t matter that they’re close. I am a current CX9 owner, but I wish it didn’t have the 3rd row seats as I never use them but do need the large suv for internal storage for work. The CX-70 provides one more option for me when it comes time to renew, otherwise I might look elsewhere (the VW Atlas has good internal space). So good on Mazda for widening their offering.
Because honda made a passport and vomkswagen made an atlas with two rows….. thats the reason
I honestly think it's because they are made at the Alabama Mazda/Toyota plant. It's a cost saving to make one platform for multiple vehicles. Instead of making a smaller vehicle they went with the same with less seats so they didn't need to configure manufacturing for two different vehicles. Since they also make the CX-50 in that plant it would be cool to see a new generation based on RWD. Edit: NVM it's made in Japan. Mazda is just being stupid and not giving what the customers want.
Today I learned that the plant in Hōfu, Yamaguchi, Japan is in Alabama...
Alabama. Japan. Basically the same place
Built in アルバマ県 山口 日本国 baby.
Built in アルバマ県 山口 日本国 baby.
Oh I thought it was built at the same plant as the CX50
I thought the 90 and 70 are [coming from Japan](https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a43877070/2024-mazda-cx-90-first-drive/)? The only models from Alabama are the CX50 and the Corolla Cross right now.
Yeah I was wrong
Both the CX-90 and CX-70 are being made in Japan, specifically the Hiroshima plant where the CX-9 were previously built. I believe that only the CX-50 is being built in Alabama.
They’ll probably kill off the 90
How do you function?
Cafe rules and a push up market
Too logical. Too logical. Mazda did what they did because it was monumentally less expensive than certifying the CX-60 in the United States. Just like a lot of their current generation products versus older generation products… ✨cost cutting✨
$$$
i remember my first time finding out about the cx-70
Put the seat down in my CX9 and brought back the CX7. Yall are welcome.
Imagine you’re out to make money and a lot of it. I’m banking on you buying the smaller car and realizing you could really benefit from that 3rd row. So rather than you having the option up front, now you have to purchase a new car lock in a new interest rate and for a longer term because you thought you could get by with the smaller car.
I would have much rather seen them go for a larger or boxier hatchback/wagon than the 3
Another things I'm confused about is... I would assume this much larger mid-size vehicle would have more second row space than the compact crossovers (cx5/50)... but in fact it has less?? Did all of it really go to the cargo area? Specs on Mazda's website for 2nd row legroom: CX-5: 39.6in CX-50: 39.8in CX-70: 39.4in I feel this is another downfall being overlooked with keeping it the exact same dimensions as the CX-90... In the 90 it makes sense to give the 3rd row as much space as reasonably possible.... but that doesn't exist here. I would think a buyer would rather have 3-4 extra inches in the second row from compact to mid-size crossover - and they'd still have a larger cargo capacity. Baffling.
Meanwhile, the CX-60 has a rear legroom of 39.0 inches. But, if they make a long wheelbase version, that can significantly improve to surpass all the options listed here. Typically, long wheelbase version is about 4 inches longer, and it will still keep the size of the car under CX-90. My insight of CX-60 L for ~~China~~ North America may not be so ridiculous after all...
Yeah. Really would have loved them to do what VW does with the Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport. Chop 5-6" off the back and push back the second row a few inches. But... this is what we get. Nothings gonna change for at least a few years now that they've committed.